Thanks. I remember the comment about the pilot now that I saw it again. Ok, so Bumbles made a bumble. That wasn't the first or last comment he made that was not quite accurate.

As for an explanation, the first Tower was on TV minutes after the first attack and the speculation at the time was a small airplane hit it. But, within maybe 10 minutes - at the maximum - of the first plane hitting there was non-stop video coverage of what was going on. My guess he was watching the coverage of the first Tower fire while he was waiting to go into the classroom and 3 months later confused made the comment you see in that video. Tell me what else you think it means? Tell me what else you think it proves? Are we now supposed to believe that he had some secret camera set up and he was watching his evil plot unfold while in the hallways of a Florida public school, hoping no one else would notice it, and he just slipped up 3 months later? Because, if you're not arguing that then there is no other conclusion than it was just a mistake. Even if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever wackiness you are implying here, there is no way that Bush saw the attack on TV unless you are accusing him of having some kind of camera set up and he was watching it in the hallway of a public school - in full view of a lot of people who have never said anything about it.

So, which is it? Mistake or secret camera and closed circuit TV in the hallway of a Florida public school? It is either one or the other.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(11-09-2011 08:13 AM)BnW Wrote: Thanks. I remember the comment about the pilot now that I saw it again. Ok, so Bumbles made a bumble. That wasn't the first or last comment he made that was not quite accurate.

As for an explanation, the first Tower was on TV minutes after the first attack and the speculation at the time was a small airplane hit it. But, within maybe 10 minutes - at the maximum - of the first plane hitting there was non-stop video coverage of what was going on. My guess he was watching the coverage of the first Tower fire while he was waiting to go into the classroom and 3 months later confused made the comment you see in that video. Tell me what else you think it means? Tell me what else you think it proves? Are we now supposed to believe that he had some secret camera set up and he was watching his evil plot unfold while in the hallways of a Florida public school, hoping no one else would notice it, and he just slipped up 3 months later? Because, if you're not arguing that then there is no other conclusion than it was just a mistake. Even if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever wackiness you are implying here, there is no way that Bush saw the attack on TV unless you are accusing him of having some kind of camera set up and he was watching it in the hallway of a public school - in full view of a lot of people who have never said anything about it.

So, which is it? Mistake or secret camera and closed circuit TV in the hallway of a Florida public school? It is either one or the other.

Logically he could of made a mistake.....got carried away in his speech or something.......I dont know the answers my friend, I only weigh up all of the possibilities.

Whats Ironic is none of us will probably ever know the "truth" of what went down that sombre day......It is one of my beliefs, through experience, is that most people who are into conspiracy are so for the "entertainment" value of it (Dastardly plots, twists and turns, videos/evidence edited in dramatic ways to bring some sort of shock factor/reaction.......in a continueing series full of cliffhangers and possibilities)

The conspiracy community is full of "keyboard warriors" who only half believe in the storys themselves (I say this because there is hardly any counter action, I have tried to discuss with different communitys on the net about spreading information and nobody is interested) I myself have took a step back from these places as although they do hold interesting information......it is very one sided and not willing to reason with logic.....they use belief and faith most of the time to argue there point......even in the face of logic (just like our old friend religion)

I do think that without logic the conspiracy community can look stupid and "crazy"........ however for me personally.......it would be more crazy to come to a decision either way given all of the information that raises questions either way.

Theres just a lot of things that just dont make sense.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

Concentration-camp inmates in Germany were drugged, carried to the Polish border, dressed in Polish uniforms, spread out on the ground around a German radio station and shot dead. After which an SS officer made an inflaming speech on the German radio station, pretending to be the officer of a polish unit that just attacked Germany. Hitler used it next day to justify his attack against Poland. See "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

And if this isn't convincing, read up about the Reichstag fire

Of course this does not mean that every conspiracy theory has merit -- far from it.

However, in the 9/11 tragedy, I would not put it past the bastards that they at least had advance knowledge and let it happen anyway because they needed an emergency large enough to launch their wars.

Do I see it proven, either way?

Of course not.

Circumstantial evidence?

The jury is still out on that one and will stay out for a very long time.

Concentration-camp inmates in Germany were drugged, carried to the Polish border, dressed in Polish uniforms, spread out on the ground around a German radio station and shot dead. After which an SS officer made an inflaming speech on the German radio station, pretending to be the officer of a polish unit that just attacked Germany. Hitler used it next day to justify his attack against Poland. See "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

And if this isn't convincing, read up about the Reichstag fire

You raise a good point Zatamon about looking back in history......although this is no proof of what is happening today, it is a stark reminder and a lesson/insight of human nature and the lengths people can go to.

I envisage its not easy at the top.....that for the continuing survival and security of a nation then particular decisions have to be made that wont be easy and wont please everybody.......however the fact remains, as proven through history that a trend remains where people exploit there positions of power......again I dont attribute this as any proof of todays conspiracy, however it can logically chip away at the thinking of it being "impossible" and never happening before.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

(11-09-2011 11:03 AM)bemore Wrote: I envisage its not easy at the top.....that for the continuing survival and security of a nation then particular decisions have to be made that wont be easy and wont please everybody

I suppose I have my own skepticism about a lot of things. Not so much that the WTC was an "inside job" or that it was at the very least, an opportunity taken... hmm. I think that I'm apt to defend the questioning of "authority" more often these days, mainly because it's been proven our population has been lied to so freely in the recent past.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

Sorry I have not responded in a while. I've been overwhelmed at work and really have not had time and am finally catching up. Anyway, I wanted to react to a few things here.

First, the idea that there is precedent for conspiracy theories and that gives credence to the 9/11 theories. This is completely baseless and the examples being used really do not make the point at all.

The Poland example fails because that was not a conspiracy by a government against its own people. It really wasn't even a conspiracy. It was a plan to start a war that Hitler was determined to start. I can't say for sure what game he was playing with how he went about it but I strongly suspect he was trying to make it look like Poland started the war and Germany was acting in self defense, probably so he could give the British an excuse not to declare war on Germany. Hitler believed that England did not really want war with Germany and was wiling to look the other way if only he could provide them an out. He also believed they would sue for peace very early in the campaign. He greatly underestimated Churchill's resolve.

The Coventry example also fails because it was not a conspiracy, it was a decision. The British were fighting for the survival of their nation, not the lives of a few people. In the summer and fall of 1940, during the Battle of Britain, Churchill and Fighter Command were making decisions every day that resulted in the life and death of hundreds and often thousands of people. They sent fighter squadrons made up of just a hand full of pilots and planes up against vastly superior numbers with the strategy of slowing down and punishing the Germans, but avoided getting into an all out battle because if they lost that battle Churchill and the RAF new the nation was done for. Making a decision to let the Germans bomb a civilian area to protect the fact that the British had broken some of the German codes is not a conspiracy, it is a reasonable war-time decision given the circumstances at the time.

This has gone into dizzying, and increasingly foolish - in my humble opinion - digressions. So, here is the point: being cynical and distrustful of government is one thing, and is a healthy thing. There is no doubt in my mind that governments, on a daily basis, do things that, at best, boarder on the criminal and for which they will never be held accountable. A casual perusal of some of the wikilinks revelations pretty much proves that. However, there is a difference between healthy skepticism and rampant paranoia and the 9/11 conspiracy theories are well on the side of rampant paranoia. There is no evidence to back up any of these claims. No witness has ever come forward to corroborate any of the theories that are thrown out there. There are also scientific explanations for all the events of that day and hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, witnesses, to the attacks themselves. And, finally, so much of these conspiracy theories are built upon lies, half-truths and distortions of information that no reasonable person should believe them. The nonsense about the truck bomb found on the bridge, the re-upping of the insurance, that the media reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened (no one brought that up here) - none of these stories are true. None of them. When the best and most shocking examples to support the conspiracy theory are easily discredited by a cursory review of the facts, you have to seriously start to think that maybe, just maybe, this is exactly what it seemed to be; an act of extreme violence by religious fanatics.

This does not mean that the US government did not have failings leading up to and after the events of 9/11 that have never been properly disclosed to the American people. It does not justify everything that happened afterwards. You can admit that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and still disagree (or agree if you so choose) with the actions and policies that were put in place following the attacks. Your not some traitor to a cause by admitting that all the actual facts and evidence support the official version of events, though. But, if you wish to believe otherwise, you are certainly free to do that too. However, I would point out a famous quote by the late New York Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which states as follows: "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

Even if bush said it that was when he first saw it. It would be consistent with what we have seen.
The first thing he was "The country is under attack". Many expect that he should have immediately got up and made good byes. But he didn't. How can this be explained?

Failure of imagination.
Groups/Countries is always criticizing USA or attacking outposts. This was par for the course then. Given this scant peice of information it is hard see why he would have understood the need for urgency. The last major attack on US soil was 1942.

Don't scare the kids.
It would have been hideously inappropriate to mention any attack in front of a class room full of kids.

What did I just hear.
They way we process audio input is complex an occasionally prone to failure. we are hear all the sounds and still fail to extract the words that were intended for communication.

Once off camera and out of the class room the Secret Service Agents assign to him may have been able to put a laptop or portable TV in front of him showing video of the plane.